The Democrats witness dilemma

Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
Trump is as real and legitimate as any other president.
Click to expand...

That argument can be made of course, but the fact is Trump is really only being president to his base. He is not even trying to act like President to the whole nation. Obama gave the Republicans a very real opportunity to work with him. That was rejected. Republicans made a pact to block Obama from accomplishing anything.

Darth Omar said:
It’s actually not a question of whether I want witnesses or don’t. The constitutional question is whether the Senate should allow them or not. They certainly aren’t required to since *the way it’s supposed to work* is the House does the impeachment inquiry—that means gathering the evidence, interviewing ALL witnesses and/or allowing the courts to settle any issues involving executive privilege and etc.

Democrats didn’t do this. They were ‘in a hurry’. So now they want to effectively extend an impeachment inquiry into the Senate.

Why should the Senate allow Democrats to abuse the process? I can’t think of a single reason.
Click to expand...

Only if they want to do the right thing by the American people and get to the truth that Trump is hiding.

It would be a miscarriage of justice for Trump to get off on a technicality.
 
Bigdog said:
His cover story for investigating corruption is ... investigating corruption. :whoa: :palm:

Joe Biden got caught getting his son a top job in the most corrupt country in the world, while he was Obama's pointman in Ukraine. Then got caught, in Jan 2018, bragging about threatening a Ukraine prosecutor, who was investigating his son, by withholding a Billion in Aid. Prosecutor Shokin should be called as a witness at the impeachment trial.

And yes I doubt you. Yours is nothing but a fantasy lib fill-in-the-blanks scenario. Never is it Connect the Dots in libtard lalaland. Always full of holes. :palm: There is Zero evidence Zelensky was ever threatened. Call him as a witness, too.

The Aid was approved on May 23, ... two days before Poroshenko was to leave office.
Click to expand...

Poroshenko was corrupt and trump had no problem delivering money to him without demanding an investigation into the Bidens. He could have made the same demand of Poroshenko that he made of Zelensky but he didn't, and we all know why. Use your head for once.
 
christiefan915 said:
Poroshenko was corrupt and trump had no problem delivering money to him without demanding an investigation into the Bidens. He could have made the same demand of Poroshenko that he made of Zelensky but he didn't, and we all know why. Use your head for once.
Click to expand...
the point is the money was approved under Poroshenko adm. ( which is never mentioned).
a new administration afterwards is certainly enough for Trump to at least ask about looking for corruption.
If you read the transcript -Trump even mentions to Zelensky to stay away from the Poro crowd ( going by memory)

Just because Trump did not hold back aid for Poroshenko, doesn't mean he wouldn't ask about corruption to Zel
 
dukkha said:
the point is the money was approved under Poroshenko adm. ( which is never mentioned).
a new administration afterwards is certainly enough for Trump to at least ask about looking for corruption.
If you read the transcript -Trump even mentions to Zelensky to stay away from the Poro crowd ( going by memory)

Just because Trump did not hold back aid for Poroshenko, doesn't mean he wouldn't ask about corruption to Zel
Click to expand...

My point is that trump didn't care about investigating corruption under Poroshenko. He only "cared" after Biden threw his hat in the ring.
 
christiefan915 said:
My point is that trump didn't care about investigating corruption under Poroshenko. He only "cared" after Biden threw his hat in the ring.
Click to expand...
i answered this. Not doing one thing doesn't mean the other isn't legit.
and the fact there was a change in the adm, is a real reason to at least ask about corruption
 
Darth Omar said:
Trump is as real and legitimate as any other president.

It’s actually not a question of whether I want witnesses or don’t. The constitutional question is whether the Senate should allow them or not. They certainly aren’t required to since *the way it’s supposed to work* is the House does the impeachment inquiry—that means gathering the evidence, interviewing ALL witnesses and/or allowing the courts to settle any issues involving executive privilege and etc.

Democrats didn’t do this. They were ‘in a hurry’. So now they want to effectively extend an impeachment inquiry into the Senate.

Why should the Senate allow Democrats to abuse the process? I can’t think of a single reason.
Click to expand...

Ummmm...what about the oaths to do "impartial justice?"

"Justice"...whether impartial or not...requires considering ALL the evidence that can be obtained...not just the evidence they want.

The Republicans constantly complain about "hearsay" evidence. Well, in effect, all the evidence they get from the House is "hearsay." They should get some "first hand" evidence too. And that would require witnesses.

Look...they are going to acquit Trump. ANY Republican voting to convict Trump will not only be committing political suicide, he/she will be insuring that the posh jobs that come with retirement will no longer be available. And putting themselves into that kind of position is just in not in the political DNA.

Trump

So...hear from the witnesses...and then acquit.

Most people out here in the public know where things are on this issue. Listening to more witnesses and then acquitting Trump is not going to make them look any less craven.
 
Darth Omar said:
I don’t know if the Bidens are guilty or not.

My point is the Biden’s conflict of interest in Ukraine was suspicious looking enough to constitute probable cause. The narrative is that it was somehow outlandish for Trump to ask Zelensky to look into it.

An outlandish request would asking Zelensky to look for dirt on Warren or Crazy Joe. It always goes back to Hunter’s relationship with Burisma while Joe was VP and appointed to look after Ukraine. If that situation didn’t exist none of this would have happened.

Or maybe Democrats would have come up with something else by now anyway.
Click to expand...

Jesus H. Christ, Darth...if charges could be brought against Hillary Clinton or Hunter Biden...THEY WOULD ALREADY HAVE BEEN BROUGHT.

Hillary has been investigated by the Republicans for a decade...and hard-core, fucking bat-shit-crazy Republicans have been in charge of the DOJ for the last three years. They would have prosecuted her if there was ANYTHING.

Same thing goes for Hunter Biden...although he has not been investigated for a decade. If the DOJ had anything on him...his ass would be grass by now.

What are you people unable or unwilling to understand about that?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth,



I would be good with any witnesses Trump wants to call. You can have them all, as long as the Democrats get the same freedom.

Your witnesses against ours.

You're totally on.

I would take that deal in a heartbeat.

Trump would be gone and I don't care who else might go down at the same time.

That would be totally worth it.

You can have Hunter Biden.

He is worth nothing to me.

Then after the dust is settled we will elect any of the remaining Dem candidates in 2020 and finally put this country back on track.

We have to get rid of Trump to save the world from climate change.

We don't have 4 more years. It's now or doom.

We are down to the wire.

Please don't destroy Earth. It's a nice place to live.

And there is no planet B.
Click to expand...

Like the Republicans did in the Congressional Impeachment hearing??

The rest is just you melting down, into a whine puddle.

:facepalm:
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth,

I have no problem with both sides calling all the witnesses they can think of. Call Roger Stone. Call Cohen. All of Trump's closest men. Call Hunter Biden. Call Hillary. Question her about Benghazi one more time. You can have them all, as long as we get ours. Deal?



Aha. Once your bluff is called, now we see what you really want.



Clinton's impeachment trial had witnesses. And Clinton took the stand in his own defense. He faced up to the American people. Clinton took the oath. He was sworn in, swore that his testimony was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Basically, Clinton manned up.

But I understand if you don't think Trump can man up like Clinton did.

After all.

Clinton was a real President.
Click to expand...

Like the Republicans were allowed in the Congressional Impeachment hearings??

Don't you understand, that the Congressional liberals have no control over how the Senate runs this!!

:facepalm:
 
dukkha said:
don't forget this sequence ( if I can recall it)

Shokin is ready to interview Hunter
Hunter contacts State
State ( Nuland) contacts Poroshenko
Uncle Joe calls Poroshenko 3x in one month
Shokin is fired when Uncle Joe goes to Ukraine
(by memory from Solomon's docs)
~~
Uncle Joe is upto his ears in it
Click to expand...

You forgot WHY Joe went to Ukraine. At the behest of the US, NATO, EU and the IMF to remove an incompetent prosecutor.
 
christiefan915 said:
Poroshenko was corrupt and trump had no problem delivering money to him without demanding an investigation into the Bidens. He could have made the same demand of Poroshenko that he made of Zelensky but he didn't, and we all know why. Use your head for once.
Click to expand...

Show me evidence that Trump "demanded" a Biden investigation, or admit you lied. :dunno:

And Poroshenko was apparently party to the Hunter cover up.

"On April 18, 2018, an alleged recording of part of a conversation between President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko and fugitive Ukrainian lawmaker Oleksandr Onyshchenko was released by Onyshchenko which implicated Zlochevsky in graft.[3][23][24]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Zlochevsky
 
Flash said:
It is the duty of the president to ask foreign leaders to investigate American citizens in their country? That is not the president's duty.
Click to expand...
Yes it is, if the investigate reveals some corruption U.S. government.
Flash said:
What was the cause to begin such an investigation--
Click to expand...
Ask the Ucrainian government.
Flash said:
what evidence did they have?
Click to expand...
Ask the Ukranian government.
Flash said:
Being appointed to a board with no experience is not a crime and happens all the time in the U. S.
Click to expand...
Begin paid enormous sums of money to gain influence against the Ukranian government IS.
Flash said:
And the Ukraine already did an investigation.
Click to expand...
No, they didn't. You forget the extortion by Joe Biden and Obama.
 
domer76 said:
You forgot WHY Joe went to Ukraine. At the behest of the US, NATO, EU and the IMF to remove an incompetent prosecutor.
Click to expand...

The prosecutor that happened to be investigating the energy company his son worked at.

The US didn't request it.
NATO didn't request it. They could care less about the Ukraine.
The EU didn't request it. They could care less about the Ukraine.
The IMF didn't request it. They could care less about the Ukraine.

You're a liar, dude.
 
christiefan915 said:
My point is that trump didn't care about investigating corruption under Poroshenko. He only "cared" after Biden threw his hat in the ring.
Click to expand...

Liar. There was a Pentagon investigation into Ukraine gov't corruption before the 2nd javelin package was approved. Then the gov't changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top